Djokovic beat Nadal 7 times in a row in a timespan lasting less than a year. So he dominated Nadal for a very short period of time. But it doesn't matter; Nadal still leads 6-3 in slams and 19-14 overall, one win away from tying the Sampras-Agassi H2H, and at AO 2013 he has the golden opportunity to beat Djokovic at all four slams and extend his dominance over Djokovic.

Advantage Nadal.

Whereas Federer has been dominated by Nadal for his entire career, not just for a short period.

By the way, I hope Federer is pointing to the exit in that avatar, since that's the way he's heading. Although, personally, I don't want Federer to retire, since I'd like Nadal to finish up his career having beaten Federer in the final of all four slams, and have at least a 4-0 hard-court slam H2H lead, including 4-2 at Wimbledon (if Federer goes deep at Wimbledon, which is unlikely) and 2-0 at the US Open. One more win at Roland Garros would be nice too, making it a career bagel (6-0).

By the way, I hope Federer is pointing to the exit in that avatar, since that's the way he's heading. Although, personally, I don't want Federer to retire, since I'd like Nadal to finish up his career having beaten Federer in the final of all four slams, and have at least a 4-0 hard-court slam H2H lead, including 4-1 at Wimbledon (if Federer goes deep at Wimbledon, which is unlikely) and 2-0 at the US Open. One more win at Roland Garros would be nice too, making it a career bagel (6-0).

By the way, I hope Federer is pointing to the exit in that avatar, since that's the way he's heading. Although, personally, I don't want Federer to retire, since I'd like Nadal to finish up his career having beaten Federer in the final of all four slams, and have at least a 4-0 hard-court slam H2H lead, including 4-1 at Wimbledon (if Federer goes deep at Wimbledon, which is unlikely) and 2-0 at the US Open. One more win at Roland Garros would be nice too, making it a career bagel (6-0).

Click to expand...

OH you cruel person!! :twisted: but see feds already beaten nadal twice at wimbledon so cant happen but yes I can see how for a 26 year old in his prime beating a 31 year old is an achievment

I didnt say it was prime sampras. But neither of them were in their prime and plus Sampras had more experience on the big stages as he was Defending Champ But Nadal is 26 and in his prime! Its like if a 26 year old Fed beat sampras at wimbledon which clearly wasnt the case. Yes Nadal has beaten fed in his early 20's but except the Roland Garros wins, He's never beaten PEAK fed like the 2004-2006 (got bageled in the final of wimbledon actually first set in 2006)

I didnt say it was prime sampras. But neither of them were in their prime and plus Sampras had more experience on the big stages as he was Defending Champ But Nadal is 26 and in his prime! Its like if a 26 year old Fed beat sampras at wimbledon which clearly wasnt the case. Yes Nadal has beaten fed in his early 20's but except the Roland Garros wins, He's never beaten PEAK fed like the 2004-2006 (got bageled in the final of wimbledon actually first set in 2006)

Click to expand...

He was 17-18 at 2004. Rafa I believe beat that peak Fed on a hard court as a teenager at 17. In case you didn't know.

And all happening within the vicinity of those precariously placed wooden crates full of dynamite and other explosives, that seem to populate the lairs of Bond villains and First Person Shooters :twisted:

In 2006 Rafa was age 20 and called a "claycourt specialist" with very little experience on grass. He still took a set off Federer in the final. Not very convincing from Federer's perspective.

Click to expand...

He ate a bagel in the first set. Please grow up, Rafa didn't become infinitely better in two years. It was a combination of his ascension and Fed's decline, and for the hardcourt slams, it also had something to do with the decline of the types of players who were pummeling him there. Now, the players are mostly either inferior versions of Rafa or lower level aggressive players who are going to have trouble hitting through anyone given the speed of the courts.

He ate a bagel in the first set. Please grow up, Rafa didn't become infinitely better in two years. It was a combination of his ascension and Fed's decline, and for the hardcourt slams, it also had something to do with the decline of the types of players who were pummeling him there.

Click to expand...

If you want to take a look at reality, Rafa played more grasscourt matches in 2006 than he played in all the years as a pro prior to 2006 combined. That means the experienced he gained in 2006 alone was greater than his entire grass experience prior to 2006. And anyone who actually witnessed Rafa's 2006 final and 2007 final would see the huge differences in his serve (suddenly using the slice serve) and his court position and aggression.

If you want to take a look at reality, Rafa played more grasscourt matches in 2006 than he played in all the years as a pro prior to 2006 combined. That means the experienced he gained in 2006 alone was greater than his entire grass experience prior to 2006. And anyone who actually witnessed Rafa's 2006 final and 2007 final would see the huge differences in his serve (suddenly using the slice serve) and his court position and aggression.

Click to expand...

Right, he made his adjustments so that he could beat Federer. He was already good enough to reach him. He still didn't win in 2007, by the way. If you want to take a look at reality, Fed played terribly in the first two sets in 2008. He had his good moments and breaks that he blew completely. He still only lost 9-7 in the fifth set. It isn't a huge leap to suggest that a peak Federer is going to win his matches against peak Nadal on grass. The guy has seven titles to Nadal's two. Whine all you like, but that is reality, accept it and move on.

Right, he made his adjustments so that he could beat Federer. He was already good enough to reach him. He still didn't win in 2007, by the way. If you want to take a look at reality, Fed played terribly in the first two sets in 2008. He had his good moments and breaks that he blew completely. He still only lost 9-7 in the fifth set. It isn't a huge leap to suggest that a peak Federer is going to win his matches against peak Nadal on grass. The guy has seven titles to Nadal's two. Whine all you like, but that is reality, accept it and move on.

Click to expand...

The only reason Rafa didn't win 2007 Wimbledon is because of his quad injury. Not an excuse, just reality. And Rafa didn't play well in the 2008 final, because he was very nervous once he got up 2 sets to love. I consider it a choke (despite winning). BTW, you post under a username that indicates you are only here to hate on Rafa. You aren't here to support Rafa. You aren't here to support any other player either. You are only here to hate on Rafa. That is pathetic.

The only reason Rafa didn't win 2007 Wimbledon is because of his quad injury. Not an excuse, just reality. And Rafa didn't play well in the 2008 final, because he was very nervous once he got up 2 sets to love. I consider it a choke (despite winning). BTW, you post under a username that indicates you are only here to hate on Rafa. You aren't here to support Rafa. You aren't here to support any other player either. You are only here to hate on Rafa. That is pathetic.

Click to expand...

Back to the username, NSK? It gets old after the third or fourth time.

The reality is that Rafa lost 2007 Wimbledon. I just checked to make sure. You should do the same. We can play this game all you want: Federer didn't play well, his back hurt, Rafa's parents got divorced, his tape was too tight, blah blah blah. It is all pathetic.

Fortunately, everyone on this planet is quite sure of the actual results, join the club, learn history (or the fairly recent past).

Back to the username, NSK? It gets old after the third or fourth time.

The reality is that Rafa lost 2007 Wimbledon. I just checked to make sure. You should do the same. We can play this game all you want: Federer didn't play well, his back hurt, Rafa's parents got divorced, his tape was too tight, blah blah blah. It is all pathetic.

Fortunately, everyone on this planet is quite sure of the actual results, join the club, learn history (or the fairly recent past).

In 2006 Rafa was age 20 and called a "claycourt specialist" with very little experience on grass. He still took a set off Federer in the final. Not very convincing from Federer's perspective.

Click to expand...

Why would you keep mentioning the "Clay Court specialist" crap? Only the judgmental types called him that and they've all changed their minds now. Nobody in their right mind would still call Nadal a clay court specialist. If you bring up that term just to denigrate Federer, you're denigrating Nadal more. Seriously, I can't believe the lengths people go to just to make their case while defeating their own purpose.

Why would you keep mentioning the "Clay Court specialist" crap? Only the judgmental types called him that and they've all changed their minds now. Nobody in their right mind would still call Nadal a clay court specialist. If you bring up that term just to denigrate Federer, you're denigrating Nadal more. Seriously, I can't believe the lengths people go to just to make their case while defeating their own purpose.

Click to expand...

Rafa was definitely a clay-court specialist in 2006. I mean prior to Wimbledon 2006, Rafa had won 2 Roland Garros titles and hadn't even made a slam final of the other slams. He was still adapting to the other surfaces. He had zero decent results at Wimbledon, and never made the semis of an Australian Open/US Open. That's not a criticism. Its a compliment, because it shows how far he has come since then.

Rafa was definitely a clay-court specialist in 2006. I mean prior to Wimbledon 2006, Rafa had won 2 Roland Garros titles and hadn't even made a slam final of the other slams. He was still adapting to the other surfaces. He had zero decent results at Wimbledon, and never made the semis of an Australian Open/US Open. That's not a criticism. Its a compliment, because it shows how far he has come since then.

Djokovic beat Nadal 7 times in a row in a timespan lasting less than a year. So he dominated Nadal for a very short period of time. But it doesn't matter; Nadal still leads 6-3 in slams and 19-14 overall, one win away from tying the Sampras-Agassi H2H, and at AO 2013 he has the golden opportunity to beat Djokovic at all four slams and extend his dominance over Djokovic.

Advantage Nadal.

Whereas Federer has been dominated by Nadal for his entire career, not just for a short period.

Click to expand...

Nadal got 3 of his Slam wins over Djokovic in 2006-2007 when Djokovic was still very raw and not even in the top 3(till late 2007). RG 2006, RG 2007, Wimby 2007.
Nadal got him again at RG 2008 and USO 2010.
Djokovic turned the tables on him in 2011. Nadal rebounded on his best surface in 2012. But who's the one with physical problems right now? Obviously all these fights against Djokovic have taken their toll on Nadal whereas Djokovic is still playing top tennis, having just won the China Open today on a surface which Nadal hasn't won on since 2010.
Nadal has yet to prove that he can beat Djokovic off clay. Nadal as a matter of fact has yet to prove that he can win anything off clay. He hasn't won a non-clay title since Japan 2010.
The days of domination are over for Nadal. Djokovic has surpassed Nadal on hardcourts. He's won more hardcourt Masters titles and hardcourt Slam titles and has a lopsided hardcourt H2H over Nadal 11-5